| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Apr 2003 : Column 1089—continued
Mr. Bradshaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I should be delighted to have a debate on party political funding—although I think that we shall be unable to find time for it—because it would enable us to remind the House and the wider public that we have actually reformed the system of party political funding. The only reason that we know where political parties get their money is because of what the Government have done. We still have absolutely no idea where the Conservative party got any of its money during the 18 years when it was in power. Such a debate would also give me and others the opportunity to congratulate Lord Sainsbury on his public-spiritedness. I made an interesting calculation overnight: Lord Sainsbury has set the rest of us a good example but, if the reports are true, he is contributing a lower proportion of his wealth to the Labour party than I am. If the right hon. Gentleman is accusing me of trying to curry favour with my ministerial colleagues, he is barking up the wrong tree.
On the question about the Prime Minister, the shadow Leader of the House may be interested to know that during the six weeks of military action in the last Gulf war, under the then Conservative Government, seven oral statements were made to the House. In the first two weeks of the present campaign, there have already been six statements. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he intends to make another statement before the Easter recess. The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that during the previous Gulf war, under his Government, the then Prime Minister made only two statements during the whole six-week duration of the conflict.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He constantly complains that there has been no reshuffle, and he now accuses the Prime Minister of spending too much time organising one. I do not know whether his speculation is true, but I draw his attention to the words of the Prime Minister's official spokesman, who, when asked yesterday when there would be a new Leader of the House, replied "Shortly."
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I would welcome a debate on political party funding, because it would give the Minister an opportunity to repeat the information that he gave me the other day about the amount of state
aid that has been given to the Conservative party since its defeat in 1997. If I recall the figure correctly, it is some £15 million. Now that the leader of the Conservative party is in the pay of the Government, the House should be given an opportunity to decide whether we are getting good value for public money.May I endorse a point made by the Conservative spokesman? I am delighted to have his support, because two weeks ago, he and his colleagues seemed to pooh-pooh my suggestion that we needed a new Leader of the House.
Will the Minister please give us an indication of when he expects to receive the Wicks committee report on the politicisation of the civil service, with special reference to special advisers? Can we have a statement and debate? Has he seen the very interesting day-to-day chronicle in The Independent today, headed "How the deafening noise of war 'buried' Labour's bad news"? Does he agree that we do not have to accept the Jo Moore conspiracy theorists' approach to those matters to recognise that some very important decisions and announcements have been made in recent weeks and buried quietly—very low-key announcements.
Keith Hill (Streatham): Such as?
Mr. Tyler: Such as a major U-turn by the Deputy Prime Minister on capping council tax rises and, not least, the issue that has just been raised about donations to the Labour party. Could we please have an opportunity to discuss the role of those responsible for communications in the civil service as soon as possible?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the generous increases which the Government have ensured that both Opposition parties receive from the taxpayer to help fund their offices. I am glad that he would welcome a debate on party political funding, as would I.
I am afraid that I cannot answer his question on the Wicks committee, but I shall endeavour to find out and write to him.
I saw the report in The Independent today, and I found it a rather desperate piece of newspaper spinning. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been lots of news that people have not paid very much attention to because of the conflict going on in Iraq, including a continued rise in employment, which is at record levels since records began, and a very big rise in the minimum wage, which has been criticised by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—something which I am sure all my colleagues will wish to remind the electorate in the run-up to May's elections.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Does not the statement that we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Defence reveal the need to hold a debate on the reconstruction of Iraq after the war? For example, if the Iraqis are to run Iraq, will they determine the contracts for the reconstruction of their country? Will there be a role for the labour movement in Iraq? There is a big tradition of trade union activity in the docks in Basra and the oilfields, often suppressed by regimes, and 1 million people turned out in demonstrations on international labour day in Baghdad way back in 1959.
However, there might be a problem with President Bush, as the leaders of those activities, often at the cutting edge of the labour movement in Iraq, have always come from the Iraqi communist party.
Mr. Bradshaw: As I said, the Government have an unprecedented good record of coming to the House to make statements on that issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already made such a statement and I expect that she will wish to return as time goes on to update the House and give hon. Members an opportunity to question her on that. I cannot promise to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House before the Easter recess, but it is the sort of subject about which hon. Members may wish to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. However, my hon. Friend's questions emphasise the importance of moving as quickly as we possibly can to ensure that post-Saddam Iraq is run by the Iraqi people for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Tony Baldry (Banbury): The Secretary of State for Defence has been very good in coming to the House to give statements; but, by contrast, the Secretary of State for International Development has been noticeable by her almost complete absence. One way in which the Opposition can usually address the failure of Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box is by using Opposition Supply days. We are now nearly halfway through the parliamentary year and, so far, we have been allocated only four out of the 17 Opposition Supply days. Would it not be fairer to have a more even allocation of Opposition Supply days throughout the year; otherwise, in May or June, or sometime later this year, we will have not Opposition Supply days but Opposition Supply weeks. That seems very unfair.
Mr. Bradshaw: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure that he understands that there are sometimes periods of very heavy Government business, with the inevitable consequence that Opposition days sometimes get bunched up. That has happened in the past under all Governments. I appreciate his appreciation of the regularity with which the Secretary of State for Defence has come to the House. Today's statement was his fourth in just two weeks since hostilities began, and, as I said, there have already been as many statements in two weeks under this Government as there were in six weeks during the previous Gulf war under the Conservative Government.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford): I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, but I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that he will know that there has been very heavy fighting in Najaf, Karbala and Nasiriyah. No one knows the humanitarian consequences of that fighting, and the International Red Cross is asking when it will get access. Will my hon. Friend discuss that with the Secretary of State for International Development and ensure that she comes to the House for a further discussion of the humanitarian situation?
Mr. Bradshaw: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's request and those of other hon. Members for
the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House to make a further statement before the Easter recess. I would simply point out to my hon. Friend that the Red Cross and Red Crescent are already doing an excellent job in those parts of Iraq—
Mr. Bradshaw: I know that they do not have access to everywhere, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Iraqi regime has given them no access to our prisoners of war, which is an absolute scandal, and she may like to draw attention to that as well.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): When the acting Leader of the House receives representations, as he undoubtedly will, from the Liberal Democrats for greater shares in debate, more parliamentary time and so on, will he bear in mind that the Liberal Democrats' so-called effective opposition is represented here today at this important business statement by not a single Liberal Democrat Back Bencher and that, apparently, none is here either to take part in the important debate on the Adjournment, when hon. Members have the opportunity to raise matters of importance to their constituents?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |